Unions in America: When did the narrative change?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Ruken

It IS relevant, because this thread is about perceptions. Labor violence has a profound negative influence,

If he had said "the answer to the OP is the perception of labor violence" then maybe. But he's not answering the OP's question.

The fact is that labor (and management) violence has gone way down. So that wouldn't explain why negative views of unions has gone up.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Bricker

No. The purpose of this thread is to ask why unions are viewed negatively.

Union violence is not as rare as you wish the readers of this thread to believe, especially low-level violence like pounding cars and shoving "scabs." And the fact is that most ardent union sympathizers DON'T think that's wrong. They think these people that cross picket lines deserve to get a few dents, on their bodies or on their cars.

No, the purpose of this thread is to answer why unions are viewed negatively NOW when they didn't used to be.

Violence in labor disputes - by both unions and management - used to be common a century ago. Both sides fought mean battles, and many on both sides were killed or injured. Those days are long gone. So saying that this relates to a change in perception about unions is not supported by the evidence.

You are just here to bash unions.

[pinkyvee]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

No, the purpose of this thread is to answer why unions are viewed negatively NOW when they didn't used to be.

Lance, what is your theory?

[foolsguinea]

I think unions have done a lot of good around the world in the last century. I don't think the present form of them is the perfect final form of economic regulation.

Unions can serve as a form of cartelization of labor to counteract the power of concentrated capital. But we need an answer for small businesses and their employees, for freelancers, and so forth. That means thinking beyond traditional union tactics, or great numbers of us will be swallowed up by the big cartels of capital, and look at the unions and the government saying, "You're no help."

We can reform how capital is organized, or we can let "the invisible hand" lurch us back to peonage.

I think unions have a role to play in politics, if they actually push for worker and/or public participation in the nation's wealth, and turn into social democratic parties as they did in Europe. But if they turn inward and only protect a narrow set of "their own," they'll end up hated much like any other unsympathetic elite.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by pinkyvee

Lance, what is your theory?

I'm not sure, but I note that negative views of unions follows the overall neoconservative trend since 1980. I think it's probably just part of that.

One reason people don't understand or appreciate unions is that they are reaping the benefits of them without belonging. Unions fought for health care, the 40-hour work week, paid vacation and sick time, etc. Now people take those for granted, even people who aren't in a union. They'll have to lose them again before it dawns on them, I guess.

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Do I really want to have a job only because my employer is forced to retain me, under threat of reprisals? What kind of pride exists in that work?

Do you want pride, or a living?

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

In Tennessee, there doesn't seem to have ever been a pro-union era.

[pinkyvee]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

One reason people don't understand or appreciate unions is that they are reaping the benefits of them without belonging.

But Lance, I did belong to a union for 30 years, and yet my personal view has also slipped. I appreciate the benefits I received. Raises, health care, retirement, etc. These were not gifts to me from the union, they were negotiated with a very cooperative employer, committed to retaining the very best work force. With every raise came a dues increase. I paid for or worked for the goodies, they were not free.

I also paid for crap I did not want. For example, weekly offers in the mail to sell me stuff "This limited offer is for union members only". Frequent political flyers telling me who or what to vote for or against. I find this offensive. My employer never sent me this crap, suggested I vote one way or another, or sold my address to outside interests. The union did. "My" union did.

In your opinion Lance, is it "legitimate union business" to extend union interests beyond negotiations for wages, benefits and working conditions for it's membership?

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

Originally Posted by pinkyvee

I appreciate the benefits I received. Raises, health care, retirement, etc. These were not gifts to me from the union, they were negotiated with a very cooperative employer, committed to retaining the very best work force.

That kinda runs against the perception that others have had in this thread that unions have too much power and management just cowers into demands, even demands which will bankrupt the company and/or handcuff them with an unproductive and unmanageable workforce (the opposite of what you claim motivated your employers). Unless you think that was the case since it's not mutually exclusive to you being happy to get yours...

I also paid for crap I did not want.

I pay for wars with my taxes that I don't want. I pay for crap in my various insurance policies that I have that I don't want or will never need. I am a member of the USBC (United States Bowling Congress) and I am pretty sure they might spend some of my membership fee on crap I don't want. I am a AAA member and I never read the stupid magazine they send me. I spend thousands of dollars a year on gas for my car - you think I like everyone who gets their hands on their percentage of what I pay at the pump and endorse what they do?

Either enough people want or need things that it makes sense you help pay for them (like schools get funds from tax even from people without kids who as kids themselves only went to private schools) or if nobody wants them, you can vote/voice your opposition to those things.

Some of those things I am not forced to get but some (taxes, insurance for my car and house) I am. To say "unions are bad because some of my dues go to some things I don't agree with" is kind of silly to say because that is the case in many situation.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by pinkyvee

But Lance, I did belong to a union for 30 years, and yet my personal view has also slipped. I appreciate the benefits I received. Raises, health care, retirement, etc. These were not gifts to me from the union, they were negotiated with a very cooperative employer, committed to retaining the very best work force. With every raise came a dues increase. I paid for or worked for the goodies, they were not free.

I also paid for crap I did not want. For example, weekly offers in the mail to sell me stuff "This limited offer is for union members only". Frequent political flyers telling me who or what to vote for or against. I find this offensive. My employer never sent me this crap, suggested I vote one way or another, or sold my address to outside interests. The union did. "My" union did.

I didn't say you should love everything about your union. But you don't hate it, do you? You don't want to abolish it, right?

In your opinion Lance, is it "legitimate union business" to extend union interests beyond negotiations for wages, benefits and working conditions for it's membership?

Sometimes, yes. Just like with a corporation, or any other institution.

[amarone]

Originally Posted by pinkyvee

I don't like my money (union dues or taxes) to be foolishly spent.

For example, local government (Detroit) having to employ a horseshoer, even though they have no horses. The union head declares that "it is not possible to eliminate positions." Link

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by amarone

For example, local government (Detroit) having to employ a horseshoer, even though they have no horses. The union head declares that "it is not possible to eliminate positions." Link

Does the contract say they can't eliminate those positions? If not, then you have no point. Unfortunately, the story you cited doesn't say. It vaguely implies it by quoting the union official, but he's actually saying that the city has too few workers in general, not that it needs to employ a horseshoer.

So unless the contract forbids dumping the horseshoer, you have no point.

[Algher]

So here is the Gallup data on how we view unions:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157025/la...al-steady.aspx

You can track Union approval go from 72% or so in 1936 (highest was 75%) to 52% in 2011 in the chart.

It would be interesting to map this against the percent of the US workforce who are union represented - I would assume a high correlation (as fewer are represented, fewer support).

As for the factors that drive negative views of unions (my random hypothesis list):

1) Not as many people being represented.
2) Public Employee Union horror stories in the press e.g. sexual predator teachers who stay on the payroll while the representation process works itself out.
3) The outright power of public employee unions (when the LA Times says that the teachers union is the most powerful force in California politics - that does not help your image given the state of our state).
4) Pay levels that others find too high, especially during a recession. Again - this is a bigger issue with public employee unions.
5) Articles about union related violence.
6) The grocery strike in CA lost support when they messed with Thanksgiving supplies. People who WERE supportive changed their mind when they couldn't get their groceries.

So what you have is a lot of bad press, without much good stuff. Bringing up Triangle again and again is ancient history, and nobody thinks that a schoolteacher or a cop is locked into a sweatshop where they will die in a fire.

I personally think that the unions represent a capitalistic good - workers should be able to band together and offer their services as a group. I think that some unions have been as shortsighted as their corporations when it comes to short term profits at the expense of long term viability.

I think that public employee unions need significant reform. Their ability to impact the elections that determine their own pay levels leaves an opening for corruption that is too large in my opinion.

As for the trade shows, I just palm $20-50 to the union guy working my area, and I get left alone when setting up my own stuff - and my power and net is always working fine too. My gear gets magically delivered early, and picked up on-time letting me make my flight. I learned that one long ago, and budget for it.

[lance strongarm]

Thanks for that post, Algher.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Regarding the Detroit position--it is for a farrier--shoeing horses is a tiny part of what they do.


Mostly, they are custom iron-workers.

If the sewer & water boys have him around, it is likely for custom pipe shaping.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Thanks for that post, Algher.

Are you okay with Algher's assertion that it is necessary to bribe a union official in order not to be harrassed at a trade show?

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Algher

So what you have is a lot of bad press, without much good stuff. Bringing up Triangle again and again is ancient history, and nobody thinks that a schoolteacher or a cop is locked into a sweatshop where they will die in a fire.

Agreed. And I even get this crap as a member of a union. All the time, I hear the union stooge say "If you didn't have a union, your employer could do "A," "B," and "C" and then where would you be?"

"A" is usually some ridiculously unsafe work condition that is covered by OSHA... i.e. Management will send you up on the roof to patch the leak without gloves or water when it's 110 degrees outside!

"B" is usually some far-fetched job requirement that is specifically outlawed by civil service rules... i.e. Management will force you to work 50 hours a week!

And "C" is usually so retarded that I debate internally whether or not to punch him... i.e. Management will make you strip down to your undies and dance in the street to lure patrons in!

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

Regarding the Detroit position--it is for a farrier--shoeing horses is a tiny part of what they do.


Mostly, they are custom iron-workers.

If the sewer & water boys have him around, it is likely for custom pipe shaping.

The job is as posted and cannot be eliminated. that's the whole point about mentioning it in the first place. It CANNOT be eliminated. You're trying to hand-wave this away by saying they give the person something to do. That's a poor business model to work with. It does not serve the business or municipality or the union workers themselves because that extra job comes out of everybody's paycheck.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Are you okay with Algher's assertion that it is necessary to bribe a union official in order not to be harrassed at a trade show?

No.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Magiver

The job is as posted and cannot be eliminated. that's the whole point about mentioning it in the first place. It CANNOT be eliminated.

There is NOTHING in the cited article that proves that the job can't be eliminated.

There was just a union official saying it can't. And when you read it, you see that he actually meant that the city was short of staff, not that that particular position is legally or contractually permanent.

You have no case at all.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

There was just a union official saying it can't. And when you read it, you see that he actually meant that the city was short of staff, not that that particular position is legally or contractually permanent.

The trouble is, and part of the reason unions are negatively regarded, is that he was lying.

The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) has a large debt, rising water prices and inefficient services — using almost twice the number of employees per gallon as other cities like Chicago.

John Riehl, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 207, which represents many of the DWSD employees, told the Detroit Free Press that the department needs more workers.

"For unions and the whole idea of collective bargaining, this is the kind of report that just makes any sort of future very, very hard to negotiate," Henderson wrote. "It suggests that collective bargaining turns government into a provider of jobs instead of public services."

The water department is bloated, expensive, and inefficient. The union boss responds by saying it needs to be made even more expensive, bloated, and inefficient.

That's part of the reason why "the narrative has changed". Because big labor has become just as bad as what it said it was fighting.

Regards,
Shodan

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Shodan

The trouble is, and part of the reason unions are negatively regarded, is that he was lying.

First of all, no, he wasn't. His comment was misinterpreted. He was just saying that workers are needed, not that they are legally or contractually required to be kept.

Second, that wasn't the original claim. The claim was that the job couldn't be dropped. It wasn't about a lie.

The water department is bloated, expensive, and inefficient. The union boss responds by saying it needs to be made even more expensive, bloated, and inefficient.

Says you. He has a different opinion. Unless you are intimately familiar with the details of the city's budget and staff, you don't know any better than anyone else. The union guy certainly knows more about it than you do. You're just automatically taking the side of management and against the union, because you are biased.

[pinkyvee]

Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear

To say "unions are bad because some of my dues go to some things I don't agree with" is kind of silly to say because that is the case in many situation.

Please quote me where I said "Unions are bad". I never said that. I know I never said that because that is not my position.

You asked about the possible causes of changing perceptions concerning unions. Unions can be a very good power base for otherwise powerless workers. In my particular situation, my union represented a not-so-powerless group, highly educated and licensed individuals who could pretty much find employment anywhere. Such worker groups are less likely to get replaced without cause. Having said that, I think that the traffic controllers also thought they were irreplaceable, and that attitude played a part in their failure.

In this economy, workers who previously might have thought of themselves as irreplaceable better think again. I know dozens of young people who would jump at the chance to step into the shoes of a firefighter or a teacher. Pretty much any profession with prestige, decent pay, and benefits.

With that said, my overall perception is that less skilled workers are more easily replaced in a work stoppage. They probably know this and and thusly become far more staunch union supporters than I ever was.

Here is a question:
Do you think union workers who are unlicensed, with less formal education/training and therefore more easily replaceable are more or less likely to resort to violence (a sign of desperation) during a work stoppage or a lock out? Does desperation and knowledge you can be quickly replaced play a part in the genesis of union violence?

I tend to think it does, but I could be convinced otherwise.

[pinkyvee]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Says you. He has a different opinion. Unless you are intimately familiar with the details of the city's budget and staff, you don't know any better than anyone else. The union guy certainly knows more about it than you do. You're just automatically taking the side of management and against the union, because you are biased.

Not exactly exceptionally logical. We're all approaching this from our own perspective which is often based on our own experience as much as by what we read.

" The union guy certainly knows more about it than you do." And, who is more biased than "the union guy". His personal income depends on defending his position that more workers are necessary.

More workers = more dues = a raise for him = a huge bias.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by pinkyvee

" The union guy certainly knows more about it than you do." And, who is more biased than "the union guy". His personal income depends on defending his position that more workers are necessary.

Of course. I didn't say he was right or we should accept what he said. He's certainly biased. I'm just saying that his opinion is worth more than Shodan's. As is the opinion of city officials.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

First of all, no, he wasn't. His comment was misinterpreted. He was just saying that workers are needed...

That's the lie.

Says you. He has a different opinion.

So did the consultant, and the editorial writer.

Unless you are intimately familiar with the details of the city's budget and staff, you don't know any better than anyone else.

Based on the fact that Detroit pays twice as much per gallon of water as comparable cities, no, my opinion is worth much more than the self-serving shit dished out by the union boss.

The union guy certainly knows more about it than you do.

No, he doesn't. He's just greedy and self-serving.

You're just automatically taking the side of management and against the union, because you are biased.

I hope you don't expect anyone to believe that you are not biased, because I don't think that's going to happen.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Bricker, the Longview Example isn't a very good one for your purposes since, apparently, the union members involved believed tha union members had been attacked first. This wasn't a case of them thinking it's generally legitimate to be violent against people not in agreement with their actions as a union.

All 500 of them believed this? And they believed their union brothers had been attacked by office equipment and windows?

Ok. Then I have a new reason unions are viewed negatively.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

Do you want pride, or a living?

Both. But if I can only earn a living at the point of a gun, metaphorical though it may be, i'd rather be on food stamps.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Bricker

All 500 of them believed this?

I assume so. Word travels...

And they believed their union brothers had been attacked by office equipment
and windows?

To reiterate: This is not a good example for your point because it is apparently not a case of union members thinking violence against opponents is legitimate in itself, but rather is apparently a case of union members thinking that violence against violent opponents is legitimate.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Diceman

In many industries, unionization had the effect of making American workers uncompetitive. The automobile industry is a textbook example. Over time, pay and benifits for (unionized) auto workers became so lavish, that the domestic car makers had trouble making money even when their cars were selling well. And when a recession hit, they lost fortunes. In the end, it drove General Motors and Chrysler into bankruptcy, and Ford very nearly so. Fortunately, GM and Chrysler came through bankruptcy in good shape, and have gotten their labor costs under control.

Other industries were not so lucky. The garment industry, for example. Almost no clothing is made in the US anymore.

I would point out that Japan and Germany both have VERY strong labor movements.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederic...twice-as-much/

We got outmanaged, outdesigned and outproduced, not outpriced.

As for the garment industry, we were never going to hold onto that industry. Garment manufacture is a labor intensive process that requires a skill that you can pick up in about 2 or 3 weeks. Labor costs are a big part of the cost of production and you simply cannot compete on mass market clothing manufacture. This leads to skill atrophy and now hardly anyone makes clothing in America anymore.

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

American workers desperately need unions or something like them. Maybe a trade association like thing would be better and more modern.

A labor party would be good. A party that was more interested in long term outcomes for people who work for a living.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

If you really think the government just gives unions whatever they want, you're really naive. It might happen in some state and local governments, but not everywhere, and not on the federal level.

Just would like to point out that federal unions are not allowed to negotiate for wages.

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

I would point out that Japan and Germany both have VERY strong labor movements.

Japan also has a very strong culture where workers are expected to work their asses off for their employer. Japanese auto makers also have bonus systems for employees that work harder, and even with all that Japanese workers make significantly less than UAW workers - especially when you add in vacation time, retirement packages and other benefits.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederic...twice-as-much/

We got outmanaged, outdesigned and outproduced, not outpriced.

You'll notice that the German cars are generally more expensive than their domestic counterparts. Also, German manufacturers make a lot of their cheaper cars in the U.S., and all located their plants in right-to-work states. If you read the article linked to the article above, you'll see that they do that because they found the UAW's rules to be non-productive. It's not just about salary - it's about work rules, benefits, and especially seniority rules that prevent the worst workers from being fired and which prevent the plant from operating at peak efficiency.

The big difference in the way German and Japanese unions work in those countries is that they are much more flexible than the UAW. They have performance bonuses, employee evaluations that lead to reward or punishment, etc.

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest drawbacks to what unions have been doing in North America. The big unions take an adversarial stance with management, and they agitate their workers with tales of management malfeasance in order to maintain their power. The result is they always have to show a 'win' whenever they go into negotiations. Once they got their salaries as high as was feasible, they shifted their tactics to negotiating for work rules that benefited the members at the expense of the company, and for retirement benefits that are more likely to be agreed to by short-sighted managers who won't have to deal with the pain of the benefit for years or decades. This is especially true with the public unions, because they understand how politicians think.

As for the garment industry, we were never going to hold onto that industry. Garment manufacture is a labor intensive process that requires a skill that you can pick up in about 2 or 3 weeks. Labor costs are a big part of the cost of production and you simply cannot compete on mass market clothing manufacture. This leads to skill atrophy and now hardly anyone makes clothing in America anymore.

And that's a good thing. Do we really see the gold standard of American working life to be sitting at a bench making clothes by hand for minimum wage? On the other hand, garment manufacture is something the 3rd world can do, and allowing them to do so gives them a chance to start building an infrastructure and a middle class. It's all good.

Most jobs like this weren't killed due to outsourcing anyway. Automation and assembly line work eliminated them. The number of people employed on farms is a tiny fraction of what it used to be. As someone who did manual labor on a farm for years, I'm waving a tiny flag in support of the machines.

A labor party would be good. A party that was more interested in long term outcomes for people who work for a living.

Except modern labor parties tend to just be mouthpieces for the unions, because that's how they get their funding. Labor governments in Britain in the 60's and 70's encourages so much union power that it nearly wrecked their economy.

Just would like to point out that federal unions are not allowed to negotiate for wages.

Big deal. When you have a major power imbalance, you find a way to turn it to your advantage. So if you can't negotiate for wages directly, you negotiate for better retirement benefits work rules that allow you to claim more overtime, more vacation time, personal time, job security, whatever. In the end, it all comes down to increasing the cost of the worker to the public.

Here in Alberta, Nurses haven't been able to get much in the way of raises for the past 5 years (although neither has anyone else in the recession). So instead, they negotiated for more sick days, more personal days, and rules that paid them more for shift work and overtime. Then many nurses translated that into pay by taking sick time or personal time during their normal shifts, then signing up for replacement shifts at time and a half or double time. They work the same hours as before, but for much more pay. You can always find a way if you have the power.

This shift to negotiating for complex, favorable work rules is perhaps the most destructive thing the unions are doing today. It's killing flexibility, increasing management overhead, and making the system less efficient. Firing a nurse in Alberta is almost impossible, even in egregious cases. There are nurses who fight constantly with each other, who constantly call in sick, who show up to work late and leave early all the time, and who are very lax with patient care.

If a manager gives them a hard time about it, they file a grievance with the union, which triggers a complex series of hearings and meetings which generally result in the union agreeing to some sort of performance improvement plan, which of course the managers have to come up with and implement. As soon as it's in place, the nurses' record is swept clean. So they start the shenanigans all over again. And often, if the manager sticks to his or her guns and demands the nurse be removed from the unit, what will happen is that the nurse will be allowed to transfer to another unit, and no record of the previous infractions are allowed to be transmitted to the new unit so they won't be 'biased'. The nurse gets a completely fresh start.

Managers understand this, so they often don't even bother. They just work around the dead wood. And they view internal transfers of nurses with suspicion, so they don't often request them. Better the devil you know.

Also, the lax rules around sick time and personal time, coupled with the complex shift rules, means every day managers have to scramble to fill nursing positions because of all the sick calls. And they're constantly blowing out their budgets with overtime pay. It's hard to plan and budget when you have no idea what your nurses are going to cost you.

[Sam Stone]

I work in factory productivity improvement. My company sells software and hardware to help streamline factory production. One of the biggest impediments to sales are unions and their rules. We'll go into a factory and analyze its processes and identify inefficiencies, then make proposals to use software or hardware to improve productivity. In factories with strong unions, this is extremely difficult. In some cases, everything about the job including how many buttons they will push or how far they have to walk between stations is negotiated by contract. So they have archaic 70's era processes in place that can't be changed without re-opening contract negotiations.

You might find a worker whose only job is to read numbers off a stack of papers and enter them into a computer. We'll identify this as inefficient, and offer to add a bar-code scanner to do it at 1/10 the annual cost. But no, that job is specified in the contract, so if they replaced the guy's job they'd still have to pay him for doing nothing. So why bother improving the process? In another case, the specific user interface was called out in the union contract - the worker's job was defined as pushing button 'A' whenever a piece of work arrived at his station, then swiping his badge to enter his employee number, then putting the material in a queue for processing depending on what a code was. We wanted to add a feature to the user interface that would allow better data tracking, but which would require the user to occasionally click another button and type in a number. This number would be used by the software to analyze failure rates and alter the flow of production to prevent bad parts from being worked on. But no... Making that guy type in an extra number on occasion meant they'd have to renegotiate the job, and they weren't willing to do that becase it could open entire cans of worms and lead to a big hassle for them.

This is the kind of stuff unions are doing in states where management has no choice but to deal with them.

'Prevailing wage' laws that prevent government contractors from hiring non-union workers at lower pay also drive up the costs of infrastructure. Obama's stimulus was less effective in part because union rules required them to determine the 'prevailing wage' in each state before contracts could be bid on, so rollout of infrastructure spending was delayed by months.

Obama's 'green jobs' programs ran into snags in part because union rules precluded the government from hiring the lower-paid simple labor that the plan required, and no one was going to pay $30/hr for someone to staple weatherstripping along a window.

It's about time for progressives to see that their belief in unions is hurting their desire for a larger, more effective government. Public Unions are destroying government effectiveness and hurting the people they are supposed to be serving. They've turned into rent-seekers who have figured out that they can play off the public's desire for services and the monopolistic nature of their jobs to funnel higher pay and benefits to themselves than they would otherwise be able to get. The people hurt most by this are the people most reliant on government services, which are the people progressives claim to be helping when they advocate for bigger government.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Frylock

I assume so. Word travels...


To reiterate: This is not a good example for your point because it is apparently not a case of union members thinking violence against opponents is legitimate in itself, but rather is apparently a case of union members thinking that violence against violent opponents is legitimate.

If union brethren are so credulous as to believe a lie of this type any time it's offered up to them by union bosses, then it's irrelevant. In other words, they will use violence at will. It makes no difference to society at large if the underlying reason is a childlike belief in the truth of anything their bosses tell them. And what's the major distance between this event and believing that scabs are "attacking" their livelihood and thus deserving of violence -- a view that has been expressed here.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Bricker

If union brethren are so credulous as to believe a lie of this type any time it's offered up to them by union bosses, then it's irrelevant. In other words, they will use violence at will. It makes no difference to society at large if the underlying reason is a childlike belief in the truth of anything their bosses tell them.

It makes the difference betewen a redeemable system and an unredeemable system.

And what's the major distance between this event and believing that scabs are "attacking" their livelihood and thus deserving of violence -- a view that has been expressed here.

Someone here has expressed the view that scabs deserve violence? Where? I didn't see it.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Shodan

That's the lie.

No, that's his claim, which you can disagree with. But he knows alot more about it than you do.

Calling something a lie that you can't possibly know, and is subject to opinion, is really low.

Based on the fact that Detroit pays twice as much per gallon of water as comparable cities, no, my opinion is worth much more than the self-serving shit dished out by the union boss.

Even if that's true, do you know it's due to high labor costs? No, you don't. There are many possible explanations.

You are extremely biased against unions so you'll believe whatever you want that goes against them.

He's just greedy and self-serving.I hope you don't expect anyone to believe that you are not biased, because I don't think that's going to happen.

Ironic statement - you reveal your bias and then complain about mine.

I never said I wasn't biased. I haven't given an opinion about this issue. That's the difference. I have credibility. Nobody can trust what you say about unions or take your opinion about them without a big fat grain of salt.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

I work in factory productivity improvement. My company sells software and hardware to help streamline factory production. One of the biggest impediments to sales are unions and their rules....

You might find a worker whose only job is to read numbers off a stack of papers and enter them into a computer. We'll identify this as inefficient, and offer to add a bar-code scanner to do it at 1/10 the annual cost. But no, that job is specified in the contract...

So renegotiate the contract.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Both. But if I can only earn a living at the point of a gun, metaphorical though it may be, i'd rather be on food stamps.

Food stamps?

No, you chose pride. No welfare for you. You starve.

[jtgain]

Once upon a time, I was 14 years old during a teachers' strike. For some reason, the local school board decided to keep the schools open and had a crazy plan to teach with the handful of teachers in the school. (This only lasted this one day).

My bus route went to the elementary school that my sister attended, and then to the middle/high school that I attended. At the first stop at the elementary school, the striking teachers pushed their picket signs inside the door of the bus. The first one actually touched my sister as she ran back to her seat crying. The bus driver had a goofy grin on his face the whole time.

After all of the elementary school kids were sufficiently scared, (and I was fucking terrified seeing my former teachers chanting and ranting), I comforted my sister and told the goofy bus driver that I was getting off the bus and attending school. He told me "Good Luck." I stood my ground and waited.

When we got to my school, the bus driver rolled down his window and said "We have a kid here that wants to go to school!" in a mocking tone. Laughter ensued outside at the picket line. There was a discussion about who and when my name came up (I was known as a good student) everyone backed off and the leader of the group came to the door. The football coach. Big Dude. He told me that he couldn't let me go to school because there were no teachers inside, and no discipline. My safety was his concern and he told me to go home.

I was respectful, calling him "sir", and told him that school was open and that I wanted to go to school. He said that he wasn't going to "lay [his] hands" on me, but he wished I would reconsider so that I didn't "destroy my future." I told him that I was going to school.

I walked through the picket line with all of the teachers refusing to look at me. When I got inside, there was the principal and two teachers who had the guts to cross the line. One was a lady in her 50s who did nothing but sob. The principal told me that nothing was going on in school that day and that I might as well call my parents and go home.

When my Dad showed up to pick me up he made Death Race 2000 jokes about how he almost got a few points, but crossed the picket line.

Twelve years later I returned to my old school on a day off to visit my old teachers. The teacher in her 50s then saw me, starting crying, and gave me a hug. She said that she thought most people had finally forgiven her, and hoped that they did the same for me.

I was astounded. Ever since that day 22 years ago, I lost respect for teachers. They are supposed to be role models and guide young people. They pushed my sister and tried to keep me out of school.

THAT union thug mentality needs to be exterminated and the earth salted so that nothing grows there again.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Once upon a time, I was 14 years old during a teachers' strike. For some reason, the local school board decided to keep the schools open and had a crazy plan to teach with the handful of teachers in the school. (This only lasted this one day).

My bus route went to the elementary school that my sister attended, and then to the middle/high school that I attended. At the first stop at the elementary school, the striking teachers pushed their picket signs inside the door of the bus. The first one actually touched my sister as she ran back to her seat crying. The bus driver had a goofy grin on his face the whole time.

After all of the elementary school kids were sufficiently scared, (and I was fucking terrified seeing my former teachers chanting and ranting), I comforted my sister and told the goofy bus driver that I was getting off the bus and attending school. He told me "Good Luck." I stood my ground and waited.

When we got to my school, the bus driver rolled down his window and said "We have a kid here that wants to go to school!" in a mocking tone. Laughter ensued outside at the picket line. There was a discussion about who and when my name came up (I was known as a good student) everyone backed off and the leader of the group came to the door. The football coach. Big Dude. He told me that he couldn't let me go to school because there were no teachers inside, and no discipline. My safety was his concern and he told me to go home.

I was respectful, calling him "sir", and told him that school was open and that I wanted to go to school. He said that he wasn't going to "lay [his] hands" on me, but he wished I would reconsider so that I didn't "destroy my future." I told him that I was going to school.

I walked through the picket line with all of the teachers refusing to look at me. When I got inside, there was the principal and two teachers who had the guts to cross the line. One was a lady in her 50s who did nothing but sob. The principal told me that nothing was going on in school that day and that I might as well call my parents and go home.

When my Dad showed up to pick me up he made Death Race 2000 jokes about how he almost got a few points, but crossed the picket line.

Twelve years later I returned to my old school on a day off to visit my old teachers. The teacher in her 50s then saw me, starting crying, and gave me a hug. She said that she thought most people had finally forgiven her, and hoped that they did the same for me.

I was astounded. Ever since that day 22 years ago, I lost respect for teachers. They are supposed to be role models and guide young people. They pushed my sister and tried to keep me out of school.

THAT union thug mentality needs to be exterminated and the earth salted so that nothing grows there again.

There are union thugs, there are management thugs, there are street thugs.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

First of all, no, he wasn't. His comment was misinterpreted. He was just saying that workers are needed, not that they are legally or contractually required to be kept.

Second, that wasn't the original claim. The claim was that the job couldn't be dropped. It wasn't about a lie.

uh huh. A city with twice the worker per gallon ratio than Chicago.

Nice spin to suggest the Union Representative mis-spoke when he said the job could not be eliminated. They're currently looking at saving $90 million a year so I dispute the Union Rep's claim (and your assertion) that the job can't be eliminated. They've put themselves in a position to be leapfrogged out of a job by way of outsourcing.

The reason the job can be eliminated is that union rules prohibit the common sense crossover of jobs. When a plumber has to wait half a day for another worker to show up and shut off a valve it's nothing but taxpayer waste brought on by unnecessary union interaction.

It defeats the idea of job security if a union creates a situation that triggers massive overhaul. This isn't 1946. Detroit isn't drowning in manufacturing jobs that support discretionary government waste. Unions need to understand that.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

So renegotiate the contract.

So that's all the city needs to do? Call up the union rep and make changes. You should run for President of the Universe.

[ralph124c]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

And murderers think murder is okay. So what? We're talking about our legal system. This is a silly response. These guys are subject to prosecution for crimes like any other.

Violence by unions, or by management, is rare and illegal. It's not relevant to this discussion.

I'd also mention the Teamsters Union. Under president Jackie Presser, they were very corrupt (Presser had six jobs/six paychecks) He also got kickbacks from firms that supplied services to the union (printers, publishers,etc.). The Massachusetts local (headed by Area President McCarthy was so corrupt that tyhe Federal DOJ took it over fro 12 years). Imagine paying dues to felons and criminals-that was the Teamsters in the 1960's,'70's,80's.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Food stamps?

No, you chose pride. No welfare for you. You starve.

Why can't I choose food stamps, again?

It's true there's a modicum of lost pride with such a choice. But I would reason that my tax dollars paid for food stamps for just this reason, and taking them when needed made sense to me -- more sense than demanding an employer pay me if the employer didn't want me there and had agreed only under duress to the conditions which allowed me to remain.

[Ruken]

Do shilling, unabashed do-no-wrong attitudes, slathering defense of ludicrous behavior, claims of the other side being just as bad, etc. create a negative perception of unions? It would seem so, but I don't know that this has changed the narrative, as I doubt it is a new phenomenon.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Magiver

So that's all the city needs to do? Call up the union rep and make changes. You should run for President of the Universe.

This is hilarious. You're the same guys who will tell someone complaining about their pay or work conditions that they should just quit and work somewhere else. Like it's so easy.

But when you're told a company should just quit a contract and work with another one, suddenly you feel the pain...

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

I'd also mention the Teamsters Union. Under president Jackie Presser, they were very corrupt (Presser had six jobs/six paychecks) He also got kickbacks from firms that supplied services to the union (printers, publishers,etc.). The Massachusetts local (headed by Area President McCarthy was so corrupt that tyhe Federal DOJ took it over fro 12 years). Imagine paying dues to felons and criminals-that was the Teamsters in the 1960's,'70's,80's.

Yeah. That was really terrible. What's your point relevant to this thread?

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Magiver

uh huh. A city with twice the worker per gallon ratio than Chicago.

Nice spin to suggest the Union Representative mis-spoke when he said the job could not be eliminated. They're currently looking at saving $90 million a year so I dispute the Union Rep's claim (and your assertion) that the job can't be eliminated. They've put themselves in a position to be leapfrogged out of a job by way of outsourcing.

The reason the job can be eliminated is that union rules prohibit the common sense crossover of jobs. When a plumber has to wait half a day for another worker to show up and shut off a valve it's nothing but taxpayer waste brought on by unnecessary union interaction.

It defeats the idea of job security if a union creates a situation that triggers massive overhaul. This isn't 1946. Detroit isn't drowning in manufacturing jobs that support discretionary government waste. Unions need to understand that.

Don't enter into a contract that stipulates a plumber must wait a day and half for someone to come shut off a valve if you think that's a bad idea for you.

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

I think unions have done a lot of good around the world in the last century. I don't think the present form of them is the perfect final form of economic regulation.

Unions can serve as a form of cartelization of labor to counteract the power of concentrated capital. But we need an answer for small businesses and their employees, for freelancers, and so forth. That means thinking beyond traditional union tactics, or great numbers of us will be swallowed up by the big cartels of capital, and look at the unions and the government saying, "You're no help."

We can reform how capital is organized, or we can let "the invisible hand" lurch us back to peonage.

I think unions have a role to play in politics, if they actually push for worker and/or public participation in the nation's wealth, and turn into social democratic parties as they did in Europe. But if they turn inward and only protect a narrow set of "their own," they'll end up hated much like any other unsympathetic elite.

Trouble is, expecting union leadership or management to act in anything but their own short-term self-interest is not a real-world solution.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Frylock

This is hilarious. You're the same guys who will tell someone complaining about their pay or work conditions that they should just quit and work somewhere else. Like it's so easy.

But when you're told a company should just quit a contract and work with another one, suddenly you feel the pain...

I just pointed out the absurdity of the post I responded to. If you think you can negotiate a new contract then have a go at it. Otherwise thanks for stumbling in with your psychic ability to tell me what I and other people think. Maybe you can rent your superpower out to the FBI and solve crimes.

[Frylock]

jtgain, you experienced what you experienced, and I have to admit I'm in no position to say anything authoritative to you about it. But what you describe runs completely contrary to what I know about the attitudes of teachers, indeed, of human beings.

I strongly suspect that in your youth, you misinterpreted what you were experiencing. No teacher thinks of any 14 year old as in any way having a say in the validity of the teacher's political views and actions. They would not care about that fourteen year old's views or actions enough to treat you as they say they did, much less to apparently have a shunning attitude about you for years afterward. (As you say was reported by the 50 year old teacher.)

A bus driver and teachers aren't going to openly, publicly mock a student.* I think they probably thought you were cute and misguided. I think the mocking laughter you report was an expression of something wry rather than mocking. I suspect, actually, that it was a wry sympathy. Not a wonderful attitude to be the object of--but not mockery.

On the other hand, like I said, you experienced what you experienced and I can't say authoritatively what "really happened." I have no idea what "really happened." I have only strong suspicions. They are hobbled by the fact that I have never seen a picket line. I do not know what they are like, and I do not know what people think the rules for them are. I am inspired by this thread to attempt to cross through some picket lines just to see what happens. I live in a right to work state, though, and I don't think we really do picket lines around here. But I'll be on the lookout.

*Probably this happened in the 60s in racially tinged situations but you're talking about open public mocking of a student who was one of their own, not a percieved outsider or member of a percieved lower class